I think a great strength of CF, and more of Elliot’s thoughts, are how they show us how to be decisive despite our fallibilism.
The great danger of skepticism is that you might end up like Pyrrho who, allegedly, wouldn’t move out of the way of oncoming wagons because he couldn’t be sure of anything. I think decisiveness is the main issue of knowledge although knowing abstract truth for its own sake is also a concern.
I think someone (other than me) here should decide on a definition of “knowing” and “to know”.
I think your definition is false due to fallibilism. Elliot’s definition contains “roughly” so I understand that you find it vague. I think knowledge is hard to define and I already gave you one definition. If you considered this definition hard to discuss then I think that’s a good reason to discuss something else.
A recent definition from Deutsch was (stutters and filler words edited out):
Knowledge is a type of information. It’s a subset of information and it’s specifically the kind of information that can have causal effect
@Elliot what do you think about that definition?
That is a definition of knowledge. It is not a definition of “to know” or “knowing”. It is different. And I don’t consider it hard to discuss. I am trying to get you or Elliot or someone to give a definition so that we can discuss it. Elliot and other CR proponents use “knowing” and “to know” often in their writing so it is weird to avoid defining it. I don’t think it’s hard at all. I have no idea why it would be hard. This is the first group that I have come across that has actively avoided even trying to give “knowing” and “to know” a definition. It feels like evasion at this point.
What’s wrong or vague about “to possess knowledge” then? That should be sufficient given you have a definition of knowledge.
A thing to note is that these definitions says knowledge can exist outside of intelligent minds. Like in a book or in genes. Which is why the definition of “knowlegde” is more complicated than the definition of “to know.”
Other definitions usually say knowledge only exists within minds.
“To know something is to possess knowledge.”
But what is knowledge?
“Knowledge is what you know.”
It’s circular and doesn’t clarify anything.
I was using:
Knowledge is, roughly, useful information. It is information that’s adapted to a purpose. It is good explanations, and it is solutions to problems people had.
This one also seems good to me.
Knowledge is a type of information. So no circular reasoning.
Do you realize that you are not defining “to know”? You keep going back to “knowledge”. A definition of “to know” should not contain any form of the word “know”.
It seems I’m assuming too much context. I’ll clarify.
We have two different sets of definitions for “to know” and “knowledge” (simplified):
| Knowledge | To know | |
|---|---|---|
| ActiveMind | useful information | to possess knowledge |
| actually_thinking | what you know | being certain about a fact |
They are designed to work in each of its own set but not outside of that context.
I would never define knowledge as “what you know”. “Knowledge” is facts about reality. “To know” is to be certain.
Again, you are using “knowledge” to define “to know”. This becomes circular. Again, a definition of “to know” should not contain any form of the word “know”.
Dude you’re focusing too much on us being a collective whole. You’re literally talking to 2 people in this thread I think you should calm down. Also, just cuz I talk on this forum doesnt mean Im a proponent of CR or CF or whatever. Don’t lump me in a category like that. I post in this group cuz I like CF nothing more as of now.
My definition of know btw is finding that something is true.
I perceive the conversation as calm and going fine. Are you getting upset yourself?
Yeah i dont like the accusation of
I think thats too big an accusation
Me too.
I agree, but I think it was due to a misunderstanding. I think he was too hasty to conclude.
I assumed then it was due to a misunderstanding since I had already perceived myself as giving definitions. So instead of getting upset I wanted to clarify. I also assumed he had no ill-intent.
I also rarely get angry and usually assume people made errors instead of willfully being mean. I can see others getting upset at the accusation given the situation.
Ohh I dont know what to say. Im sorry i interrupted you guys. I think I worded this too harshly:
I dont know what to say.
I like the way you see it. I think i keep trying to see things in a nonhostile way but it’s hard to with this topic
You seem to be taking my criticism well so I’m happy for that.
You reacted well so it didn’t go bad. Don’t feel bad about it, just learn instead.
I think you were being a bit too hasty as well. I think you should probably ask a few questions before to see if there were actually just some misunderstandings.
Using “dude” and “literally” are sings of hostility and being upset. I think most of the times you don’t want to come into a discussion this way.
I don’t think my time was wasted either. I think learned too.
Ok I’ll try that I like finding out there was more to a conversation instead of jumping to conclusions.
Yeah I saw myself typing those words and made me question “why type those words?”
Ok, I don’t like the zero sum game of where someone loses and the other discussion person wins
Sometimes you have to defend yourself in an adversarial discussion but most of the times it’s best to avoid adversarial discussions.